Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1317 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services used in setting up of factory during 17-10-2012 to 29-9-2014 - It has been argued by the Learned Counsel that omission of the words “setting up” from the definition of the input services does not mean that the appellants are not entitled for Cenvat credit on the services used in setting up of the factory premises - Circular No. 964/07/2012-CX., dated 2-4-2012, clarified by Circular No. 966/09/2012-CX., dated 18-5-2012 - HELD THAT:- The original adjudicating authority has clearly held that the services in dispute are covered by the expression used in or in relation to manufacture of final products and, therefore, even if the words ‘setting up’ are deleted from the definition of input services, it makes no difference. It is also found that the impugned order does not dispute the finding of the Original Adjudicating Authority that the services are covered by the expression “used in or relation to manufacture of final product”. The impugned order solely relied on the omission of words ‘setting up’ from the definition of input services. It is seen that the Original Adjudicating Authority had not allowed the benefit under that expression of the definition which has been challenged by Revenue. The findings of the Original Adjudicating Authority that the said services are covered by the expression used in or in relations to manufacture of final products remains undisturbed by the impugned order - the appellant remains entitled to Cenvat credit of the disputed services under the expression “used in or in relation to manufacture of final products” - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|